Damn, this thread is a flawless example of why I am not posting as much as I used to.
You take a horrible incident, add a couple of contrary voices, mix in a few peculiar factoids and this thread could of have been interesting. It should be rife with fiery discussions about serial killers. I mean, what happened to the flames aimed at the weak willed tree huggers and hard hearted future serial killers? This thread should be brinming with anger and indignation and pouring over with pointed scorn. It should have been f'ucking fun to read!
Instead we get a bunch of namby pamby pansies who don't like what happened but wont admit it too strongly for fear of looking weak. Everywere I look it's full of crap that needed a good OTST wack upside the head and I can't help but trip over half *** hair splitting mutterings in place of a good flame!
God damn you people, this is The Asylum not the sandbox. Hang from the bars of your cages and scream, throw poo at the guards and feel up your thearapist!
I need to get me some.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Dogs attacked with fireworks
Dogs attacked with fireworksFollow
trickybeck the Sly wrote:
In this context, Chtulhu means "sentient" as conscious or aware. As in, we humans are conscious of our own existence, whereas animals operate solely on instinct or trained behavior.
But that's not what the word means. A lesson, kids: do not use words you do not understand. You'll fool nobody but yourself.
Just because animals have fewer neurons and less sophisticated brain structures than humans doesn't mean they don't feel pain, fear, anger, etc. If you decide to call those reactions/reflexes to stimuli on the animals part, I could say the same for humans.
You wouldn't nuke someone with severe mental retardation in the *** with fireworks, I can't see how an animal is much different.
You wouldn't nuke someone with severe mental retardation in the *** with fireworks, I can't see how an animal is much different.
Quote:
Just because animals have fewer neurons and less sophisticated brain structures than humans doesn't mean they don't feel pain, fear, anger, etc. If you decide to call those reactions/reflexes to stimuli on the animals part, I could say the same for humans.
I never said animals don't feel pain or fear. But the difference is that animals senses are strictly physiological traits. An animal instinctually feels fear when it sees a bigger animal, and its biological instinct determines what actions it takes (run away, puff up its feathers, attack, whatever). Whereas humans have abstract and complex feelings not solely for the purpose of their own survival. I highly doubt an animal feels fear about its future, or whether it will be able to find food next week. It simply feels hunger, and so it eats.
Of course I don't condone cruelty to animals, but what is the difference between killing a dog, a chicken, or an insect. The dog is cuter?
However, if you don't believe that humans are anything more than evolved apes, there is no black and white line between killing a human and killing a dog, simply grey areas varying along lines of intelligence.
Edited, Fri Jul 2 05:07:56 2004 by trickybeck
http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/sentience
Not the best source, I know, but it explains the common usage of sentient as opposed to the dictionary definition.
Quote:
Sentience
Sentience means "having sensory perception". However, sentience is often equated to sapience or equated to "having consciousness"; i.e., saying that something is sentient indicates that it is aware in an approximately human-like manner of what it is sensing. The sentience or non-sentience of animal species is a matter of debate, especially among animal rights activists and philosophers.
Sentience means "having sensory perception". However, sentience is often equated to sapience or equated to "having consciousness"; i.e., saying that something is sentient indicates that it is aware in an approximately human-like manner of what it is sensing. The sentience or non-sentience of animal species is a matter of debate, especially among animal rights activists and philosophers.
Not the best source, I know, but it explains the common usage of sentient as opposed to the dictionary definition.
Quote:
Whereas humans have abstract and complex feelings not solely for the purpose of their own survival. I highly doubt an animal feels fear about its future, or whether it will be able to find food next week. It simply feels hunger, and so it eats.
Problem here is there are two distinct schools of thought on the matter, one being that animals are purely a result of instinct and classical conditioning whereas humans have the gift of cognition, and the other being that we only vary from animals in the intensity of cognition. (aka: One side thinks conciousness is doled out in black and white, and the other believes in a sliding scale, or "levels" of conciousness).
Guess it really depends on which one you subscribe to. We could go deeper into discussion, but who wants thoughtful debate in a thread about ***-ramming puppies with Roman Candles.
Oceanix wrote:
Problem here is there are two distinct schools of thought on the matter, one being that animals are purely a result of instinct and classical conditioning whereas humans have the gift of cognition, and the other being that we only vary from animals in the intensity of cognition. (aka: One side thinks conciousness is doled out in black and white, and the other believes in a sliding scale, or "levels" of conciousness).
Yep, that's what I meant by this:
------------------------------------------
"However, if you don't believe that humans are anything more than evolved apes, there is no black and white line between killing a human and killing a dog, simply grey areas varying along lines of intelligence"
------------------------------------------
except you stated it better.
Through some twisted combination of science, philosophy, and theology you might find an answer.
Quote:
Through some twisted combination of science, philosophy, and theology you might find an answer.
Throw an acid trip in there and I think you have a recipe for success.
Quote:
The sentience or non-sentience of animal species is a matter of debate, especially among animal rights activists and philosophers.
They forgot pet owners in there.
Nicroll 65 Assassin
Teltorid 52 Druid
Aude Sapere
Oh hell camp me all you want f**kers. I own this site and thus I own you. - Allakhazam
Teltorid 52 Druid
Aude Sapere
Oh hell camp me all you want f**kers. I own this site and thus I own you. - Allakhazam
Quote:
what is the difference between killing a dog, a chicken, or an insect. The dog is cuter?
But I'd say the main difference in this instance is the obvious sadism involved.
I think they way people view living beings is only based on their actions.
Examples:
Mosquito, sucks the blood from things, gives you a swollen spot where it bites that itches like hell. Most people don't care about killing them.
Puppy, playful, doesn't harm unless it was treated mean, is more intelligent than something like a mosquito and therefore easier to live with. Most people don't want to kill them/hate it when they die.
Saddam Hussien, crazy dictator, kills people that do not obey him or if he's in a bad mood, not intelligent at all. Most people in the modern world want him to suffer.
It doesn't really matter if they're human or animal, just what their purpose is.
I know there's probably a lot of spelling mistakes here, I'm just too damn lazy to check.
Examples:
Mosquito, sucks the blood from things, gives you a swollen spot where it bites that itches like hell. Most people don't care about killing them.
Puppy, playful, doesn't harm unless it was treated mean, is more intelligent than something like a mosquito and therefore easier to live with. Most people don't want to kill them/hate it when they die.
Saddam Hussien, crazy dictator, kills people that do not obey him or if he's in a bad mood, not intelligent at all. Most people in the modern world want him to suffer.
It doesn't really matter if they're human or animal, just what their purpose is.
I know there's probably a lot of spelling mistakes here, I'm just too damn lazy to check.
Quote:
Reminds me of the head of PETA. "I'd rather swerve and hit a human than run over a dog."
Considering most humans, I'd have to agree, and it has nothing to do with animals.
There's a point between having fun, and just being a sick ******* who deserves a good flogging...
Those idiots should be hung by their ankles and beaten like retarded piñatas...Then have an M-80 jabbed up their rears...See how fast they laugh when THEIR *** is splattered up to the back of their neck.
Some people are just pathetic...
Edited, Sun Jul 4 06:37:22 2004 by KenNoKami
Those idiots should be hung by their ankles and beaten like retarded piñatas...Then have an M-80 jabbed up their rears...See how fast they laugh when THEIR *** is splattered up to the back of their neck.
Some people are just pathetic...
Edited, Sun Jul 4 06:37:22 2004 by KenNoKami
Quote:
There's a point between having fun, and just being a sick ******* who deserves a good flogging...
tell me about it, all the licking themselves and scratching the furniture, bring on the pyrotechnics!
Recent Visitors: 304
All times are in CST
Jophiel, Anonymous Guests (303)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Dogs attacked with fireworks
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC